Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ledin v. Holm

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided October 14, 1938No. 31,961PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1DissentPeterson, Justice

Too narrow a construction is placed on the statute by entirely overlooking the fact that it is a remedial statute designed to prevent errors in voting resulting from confusion as to the identity of the candidates. The statute seeks to eliminate such confusion by identifying the candidates. A remedial statute should be liberally construed for the suppression of the mischief and advancement of the remedy. 6 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (2 ed. & Supps.) § 8986. The reason the doctrine of idem sonans seldom, if ever, applies to only the surname is that ordinarily a name is composed of both the Christian…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Ordean v. GrannisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1912

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Ledin v. HolmSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1938

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API